PIP was 2nd claim with new conditions but from 15 April 2025 new 3rd claim as advised.

Muttleythefrog

tifo said:

CosmoChic said:

I've helped quite a few people (re-)apply for PIP over the past few years. 

The starting point is a) knowing which descriptors apply to that person, and b) to what degree i.e. what points they should reasonably expect to be awarded.

The OP has consistently failed to identify this basic information for readers,  This allows me to consider the OP doesn't know either the intent of the descriptors or, indeed, where within those descriptors they would reasonably expect to be awarded.

This time i'm getting Shelter to help me (i've said this before) for the MR and, if needed, tribunal. They're the local welfare advice agency and CAB and many other point me to them.

Are you sure this is the best course of action? As I advised you... I would see why your Shelter advisor thinks a MR and then appeal are the right course of action for you here.... this is not a normal situation as you have contradicted your own assessment of your disabilities in the phone assessment. It's hard to determine if you might be better off doing 
""a) knowing which descriptors apply to that person, and b) to what degree i.e. what points they should reasonably expect to be awarded".

I'll do this and post on here."

...and then applying again with correct information about your disablements. I worry they'll treat you as just another client to do some admin with rather than look at the bigger picture which suggests to me this is a finely balanced decision on how to proceed... but unless you know your disablements relevant to PIP then it's blind course of action regardless. You could come back down the line and say MR or appeal went brilliantly and you won good award... but hmmm.. I think there's a better chance when you know your disablements, you have evidence of OCD related problems medically classified, you don't have a flawed Disability Form (which you damaged the credibility of in your phone assessment)... I worry you are vulnerable to being 'disbelieved' and they have the material in front of them to say why whereas previously you've already had this problem.

But it's your life and ultimately your decisions on these things and there is no right answer on correct course of action unless able to look back retrospectively.

peteuk

tifo said:

When i asked for a recording of the assessment maximus raised it as a complaint, i said to them it's not a complaint as i only want the recording, they didn't have it anyway, but they then asked if i have any other issues i wish to raise within the complaint to which i replied "i'll wait for a copy of the report and see".  They said "ok, let us know by {date}".

When i received the report i replied to them saying i'm not happy that the assessor noted my anxiety and OCD (on which we spent 20 mins or so) in the report but has not applied these to any of the descriptors, that i'm not happy about how being able to drive has been used for unconnected activities such as bathing (we spent 10 mins or so on this) and going to the toilet and being able to put eye drops in and that there are big jumps in assumptions where the assessor has downplayed how i engage with people in that, because my partner accompanies me to hospital appts i can engage with people and that, because my anxiety and OCD has been ignored, it's not helped me in any descriptor.

They said "we'll investigate and get back to you" but i'm not expecting any change because the DWP decision is made.

Dont take that personally, it’s the standards everyone is judged on.   If you can do something like drive its shows X, Y and Z which means what every you say is counteracted by the fact you can drive.  

I will put it another way, if you potentially cant stand to get on and off the toilet, you need an adapted car or to use public transport as getting into most cars, the seats are lower than a toilet,  If your eyesight is so poor you need to stop driving.  If a healthcare professional advises you of this (GP, Nurse, Consultant, Optician) then its carries more weight, rather than you deciding thats what you are going to do. 

But we are going round in circles, if you dont understand why driving effects other activities then you dont fully understand the PIP process. 

tifo

Muttleythefrog said:

tifo said:

This time i'm getting Shelter to help me (i've said this before) for the MR and, if needed, tribunal. They're the local welfare advice agency and CAB and many other point me to them.

Are you sure this is the best course of action? As I advised you... I would see why your Shelter advisor thinks a MR and then appeal are the right course of action for you here.

I worry they'll treat you as just another client to do some admin

I've no choice but to stick with Shelter if i need the help, with the previous PIP claim i tried everywhere to get help with MR and tribunal and they all pointed me to Shelter for my local area.

I know to them i don't matter and it's just admin work for them. I've been let down by Shelter in the past with repossession claims where they just stopped helping me and i had to complete the N244 form and attend myself.

BUT i don't want to make the same mistakes i did last time and mess up the MR and tribunal. I think this time there's more assumptions than previously and driving has been used everywhere. And the comment about mixing with people is hard to believe and i'd say easy to refute. This is where i think i should receive points as i cannot mix like others, there is also the moving around section where going shopping has been used as a reason that i can run around.

sheramber

What examples do you have that you cannot engage with people?

Not engaging with people in a waiting room is not unusual.

I do not engage with people in my GP’s waiting room, or at the dentist or  at the  hospital.
 

The only people I see engaging with each other are people who have come together. 

Can your husband help you  list actual scenarios for each description rather than general statements? 

Muttleythefrog

tifo said:

Muttleythefrog said:

tifo said:

This time i'm getting Shelter to help me (i've said this before) for the MR and, if needed, tribunal. They're the local welfare advice agency and CAB and many other point me to them.

Are you sure this is the best course of action? As I advised you... I would see why your Shelter advisor thinks a MR and then appeal are the right course of action for you here.

I worry they'll treat you as just another client to do some admin

I've no choice but to stick with Shelter if i need the help, with the previous PIP claim i tried everywhere to get help with MR and tribunal and they all pointed me to Shelter for my local area.

I know to them i don't matter and it's just admin work for them. I've been let down by Shelter in the past with repossession claims where they just stopped helping me and i had to complete the N244 form and attend myself.

BUT i don't want to make the same mistakes i did last time and mess up the MR and tribunal. I think this time there's more assumptions than previously and driving has been used everywhere. And the comment about mixing with people is hard to believe and i'd say easy to refute. This is where i think i should receive points as i cannot mix like others, there is also the moving around section where going shopping has been used as a reason that i can run around.

My question is a simple one... have you already done this (bolded) with your disability form and evidence in assessment being mismatched. You are pursuing a claim where disablement involves a condition you've encountered at assessment (triggered when you were asked about going out and referenced a difficulty sitting on public seats regarding feared contamination) and not in medical setting or in your reported disabilities before. My advice would be to seriously think about whether undoing that damage with a new well timed claim inclusive of OCD related medically supportive evidence may be wise. I worry history will repeat. But as I say... we cannot see the future... you're pursuing the usual course of action to challenge a decision and I've indicated that may not be correct in this case but we cannot know for sure.

On the last bit - don't focus much on why they say you do not meet descriptors and absolutely focus on what descriptors apply and why - at very least Shelter must do this and to do so understand precisely what your disablements relevant are. Remember you do not qualify for PIP by explaining why an assessor is wrong.... at best you will just convince someone the assessor got their opinion wrong.... what you need is people to hold an opinion of what scoring descriptors do apply. Regarding going shopping - I cannot see how you'll score points on moving around from what you and they say and you don't need to run. To be honest I've not seen anything in the thread to suggest you score any points on any activity but then that's why I keep suggesting focussing on working out what descriptors should apply otherwise it's all like playing a game of darts with no dartboard. I suspect you're in this situation you are not just because the dartboard keep going missing but keeps moving around while you are throwing the darts.

tifo

sheramber said:

What examples do you have that you cannot engage with people?

Not engaging with people in a waiting room is not unusual. I do not engage with people in my GP’s waiting room, or at the dentist or  at the  hospital.
 

The only people I see engaging with each other are people who have come together. 

I didn't say anything about engaging with people in a waiting room (though I don't). I said the assessor's reason for not giving any point for engaging with people is that, because my partner comes to hospital appts with me, i'm capable of engaging with people outside or at any time.

sheramber

tifo said:

sheramber said:

What examples do you have that you cannot engage with people?

Not engaging with people in a waiting room is not unusual. I do not engage with people in my GP’s waiting room, or at the dentist or  at the  hospital.
 

The only people I see engaging with each other are people who have come together. 

I didn't say anything about engaging with people in a waiting room (though I don't). I said the assessor's reason for not giving any point for engaging with people is that, because my partner comes to hospital appts with me, i'm capable of engaging with people outside or at any time.

Ahem

It says in the section for mixing with people that since I'm ok going to hospital (and my partner goes with me) I'm ok mixing with people. But I don't mix with people at hospital as sit and see the clinician and come back home but have to go to appointments.

That shows you can go into a room with other people. 

What examples do you have of not being able do so?

You seem to be giving general  statements of what  you cannot do.

Saying you are not able to do something sometimes is not  the majority of the time. 

HillStreetBlues

teaselMay said:

Op what do you think you should score in all of the descriptors? And why

Good luck with getting an answer, nailing jelly to the wall would be easier.

Muttleythefrog

tifo said:

sheramber said:

What examples do you have that you cannot engage with people?

Not engaging with people in a waiting room is not unusual. I do not engage with people in my GP’s waiting room, or at the dentist or  at the  hospital.
 

The only people I see engaging with each other are people who have come together. 

I didn't say anything about engaging with people in a waiting room (though I don't). I said the assessor's reason for not giving any point for engaging with people is that, because my partner comes to hospital appts with me, i'm capable of engaging with people outside or at any time.

What difficulties did you explain with engaging with people... to the assessor and in your 'disability form'? Did you explain how you can only engage with people (safely etc) with the support of someone? If you did.. why do you think your argument failed... if you didn't then their justification for zero points seems likely irrelevant. Which descriptor in the activity is correct for you? (Note preferences in terms of engagement isn't relevant... some people don't like to talk to people and that's fine... but it doesn't count as disablement just as one choosing not to go out walking doesn't mean one can't walk).

born_again

tifo said:

sheramber said:

What examples do you have that you cannot engage with people?

Not engaging with people in a waiting room is not unusual. I do not engage with people in my GP’s waiting room, or at the dentist or  at the  hospital.
 

The only people I see engaging with each other are people who have come together. 

I didn't say anything about engaging with people in a waiting room (though I don't). I said the assessor's reason for not giving any point for engaging with people is that, because my partner comes to hospital appts with me, i'm capable of engaging with people outside or at any time.

So when you go to the hospital/doctors with partner.
Who speaks to the doctor?